Re: The dilemma of being too good for challengers and not good enough at the ATP leve

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperren

It's tough being a Challenger-level player. I got to chat with a few folks over at the Singapore CH. Basically, most of these guys can't travel with a permanent coach... they simply don't earn enough to do so. So when you've got a bunch of players grinding it out on the Challenger Tour, they kinda stay on the same level if they don't get enough coaching, particularly during a tournament. Which I'm sure doesn't help when we're talking about AAAA-level players.

I 100% agree about this, if you get stuck at the challenger level for long enough, you're overall level gets dragged down to that of challengers because that's what you're used to playing against, you don't have the experience of playing better players with better balls, and that experience is needed to give an insight of what a players needs to improve to reach that level. And when you don't have the coaching there with you to keep your game improving from week to week, you stagnate. But again, the true top flight talents don't get stuck at the challenger level because they're just that much above it, it's basically a test, and some guys pass it and others fail.

Re: The dilemma of being too good for challengers and not good enough at the ATP leve

What about the situation where a player is grinding out qualis for ATP 250's, 500's, etc but bombs out in the first round main draw most of the time? Is that valuable experience learned or should he be gaining confidence in challengers?

From what we have been describing it, challenger tour sounds like the twilight zone that only a select few can escape forever.

Re: The dilemma of being too good for challengers and not good enough at the ATP leve

I think if you succeed enough on the CH level, then you can possibly hire a coach who can travel with you and help you during tournaments, which ups your level, which helps the transition into higher level tournaments. But then you get CH level players (who don't have regular coaches) who'll probably fall to the same players (the upper tier CH players, who probably have coaches). Etc. etc.

Re: The dilemma of being too good for challengers and not good enough at the ATP leve

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennisfan856

What about the situation where a player is grinding out qualis for ATP 250's, 500's, etc but bombs out in the first round main draw most of the time? Is that valuable experience learned or should he be gaining confidence in challengers?

From what we have been describing it, challenger tour sounds like the twilight zone that only a select few can escape forever.

Never mind the confidence; he probably won't be earning enough points if he keeps grinding through just to qualify at ATP-level events. Then he'd be forced back into the CH circuit anyway, to gain enough points to even make it to the qualies draw.

Re: The dilemma of being too good for challengers and not good enough at the ATP leve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filo V.

I think that's pretty true, you can also say that the top players (basically the top 4 now) are just way better than everyone else, and that the field has not weakened but that everyone outside of the top 4 are close to equal in ability and Albert has improved.

But, he's not the only example. Melzer was right around .500 in his career before 2009. Soderling was below .500 outside of indoor events, and then by 2008 and especially 2009, he became a top 5-10 player. GGL, Verdasco, Simon, Monaco, are all guys who were long term average to below average and then they have now become top 30 players. Is it all their improving or the field weakening, I think a combination perhaps?

Re: The dilemma of being too good for challengers and not good enough at the ATP leve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renaud

Every era had late bloomers

Different game now mate. It's a lot more physical and with tennis being a speed endurance event, the physical peaks take a lot longer to hit, look at how the average age where players are having breakthroughs definitely more in the late 20s then previously.

__________________“ On Nadal bumping him on the changeover, Rosol said: "It's ok, he wanted to take my concentration; I knew he would try something".

Wilander on Dimitrov - "He has mind set on imitating Federer and yes it looks good. But he has no idea what to do on the court".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filo V.

I definitely would have preferred Gaba winning as he needs the points much more, but Jan would have beaten him anyway. I expect Hajek to destroy Machado, like 6-1 6-2.

Re: The dilemma of being too good for challengers and not good enough at the ATP leve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

Different game now mate. It's a lot more physical and with tennis being a speed endurance event, the physical peaks take a lot longer to hit, look at how the average age where players are having breakthroughs definitely more in the late 20s then previously.

I totally agree with that and i also think the density of the field is more impressive nowadays which make things harder for youngsters. I know most of people here desagree (or pretend desagreeing) with that and there is no reliable way to demonstrate this point.

Re: The dilemma of being too good for challengers and not good enough at the ATP leve

The Tennis season is not too long.

I guessit depends on how good you are: if you are struggling and you are in between levels, winning challengers but can't catch a break on the tour then yes, maybe, since you have to play a whole lot of matches but for guys that are at a certain level where they can perform consistently (hell even if it's winning a match a losing the other) it's pretty ok.

Let's remember that, for example, for a top top player, there are at least 2 months that are 100% dead in the calendar: February and July. You don't have to play anything that happens in those months.

The Clay-season-Wimbledon run is perhaps the most exhausting but that's it, the rest of the season is 100% manageable.